Case law

Crespo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 6, 2017

N.S. received the DTaP, Hib, and PC immunizations on March 1, 2013. 3. The vaccines were administered within the United States. 4. … y stated and clearly agreed to.

Clearmeadow Investments, LLC v. United States

87 Fed. Cl. 509 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 24, 2009

Whatever the merits of such considerations, they carry no weight in resolving questions of jurisdiction, particularly where sovereign immunity is implicated. 13 As the Supreme Court long ago noted, “[cjonsent alone gives … In the order that follows this opinion, the court will establish a procedure for resolving these questions. .

Ahtna Logistics LLC. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 6, 2022

Cl. 275, 287–88 (2022) (“In order to be successful in a bid protest, a protestor must establish prejudice twice. First, it must establish prejudice as part of the standing inquiry. . . . … The SSA clearly intended to write “Ahtna and Paragon” in that sentence, not “Ahtna and AIP.”

Northrop Grumman Corp. v. United States

42 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,381 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 24, 1998

Thereafter, decisions at the trial level have ruled that the United States “ ‘has not waived its sovereign immunity with regard to a promissory estoppel cause of action.’ ” Biagioli v. … To the contrary, in a January 31, 1991 letter to plaintiff, Contracting Officer DiMaio noted that “the ceiling price [of the contract as modified] was clearly stated.”

Oracle America, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 26, 2019

The office found that the responses did not clearly demonstrate how multiple clouds benefitted the agency’s security needs. … A qualification requirement is generally “a qualified bidders list, qualified manufacturers list, or qualified products list.” § 2319(c)(3). This distinguishes a specification from a qualification requirement.

Tessie Dingle v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 24, 2014

Petitioner filed a response on December 20, 2013, approximately one week after the deadline established in the November 15, 2013 Order. Id. … Petitioner “bears the burden of establishing the hours expended.” Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl.

Navajo Refining Co. v. United States

58 Fed. Cl. 200 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 27, 2003

As the court stated in La Gloria, “FAR § 52.103(b) requires that ‘[a]ny provision or clause that supplements the FAR’ must be clearly identified ‘by number, title, date, and name,’ and further requires that if such supplemental … In Beta Systems, the Federal Circuit stated: The government’s insistence during negotiations on use of [the EPA clause] in its entirety, and the contractor’s acquiescence, does not immunize the government from the consequences

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. United States

103 Fed. Cl. 111 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 30, 2012

Reg. § 1.461-4 (g)(3) that qualify for the recurring item exception under Treas. Reg. § 1.461 — 5(b)(5)(ii). … sufficient to establish the fact of liability.

System Fuels, Inc. v. United States

125 Fed. Cl. 331 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 10, 2016

In order to establish causation, Plaintiffs must establish a plausible but-for world. See Yankee Atomic, 536 F.3d at 1273 (citing Bluebonnet Sav. Bank, 67 Fed. Cl. at 238). … Funches was qualified as an expert in NRC annual fee assessment, including the SFS/RD fee adopted in 1999. Id. at 1178-79. The Court qualified Mr.

Dingle v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 24, 2014

Petitioner filed a response on December 20, 2013, approximately one week after the deadline established in the November 15, 2013 Order. Id. … Petitioner “bears the burden of establishing the hours expended.” Wasson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 24 Cl.

Pulsipher v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 9, 2025

Trollmo et al., Intra-Articular Immunization Induces Strong Systemic Immune Response in Humans, 82 CLINICAL & EXPERIMENTAL IMMUNOLOGY 384 (1990) (Ex. 12, Tab S); D. C. Dumonde & L. E. … rheumatoid arthritis was an immune disease.

AGAPION v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 10, 2026

When the railroad notifies the STB of its intent to abandon, a qualified “trail sponsor”—usually a county, city, or qualifying non-profit organization—may notify the STB of its interest in managing the railroad right-of-way … There, the Court determined that “[t]he NITU clearly adopts the Survey Map on which plaintiffs rely” to establish the geographic dimensions of the trail-use easement. Id.

Allen v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 7, 2023

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Tucker Act to waive the sovereign immunity of the federal government to allow jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims if a claim is: “(1) founded on an express or implied contract … Therefore, the Court may “pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”

Kelly v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 6, 2026

The Court previously noted that this comment did not clearly establish what role Mr. Kelly played in this operation. See Kelly I, 157 Fed. Cl. at 127 n.8. … Kelly was “qualified for service and separation.” Id. (capitalization omitted). Accordingly, the statement Mr.

Payne v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 27, 2018

Cl. 54, 60 (2017) (“To establish jurisdiction Plaintiff must establish that he filed an administrative refund claim With the lRS prior to filing suit in this Court."); Fremuth v. United States 129 Fed. … United States, a judge of this court ordered the defendant to re-issue a stolen check to plaintiff pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3343 and explained that: The facts establish that Plaintiff has met the conditions established by

Pohl Corp. v. United States

29 Fed. Cl. 66 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 10, 1993

This item clearly does not apply to the 1981 case. The court will allow the fees on the December 19, 1990 invoice with the exception of the first item on the invoice. See Appendix to this order. … connection with the court proceeding, except that such fees shall not be in excess of $75 per hour unless the court determines that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified

Wackenhut Services, Inc. v. United States

85 Fed. Cl. 273 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 15, 2008

WSI’s proposal was “clearly superior” in “Mission Suitability,” because WSI had [deleted] “significant strengths” but CIS had *292 only [deleted]. See PI. Mot. at 13. … Plaintiff Has Established Irreparable Harm, If The Court Does Not Grant Injunctive Relief.

Nargi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 15, 2024

A 3 In summary, a petitioner must establish that she received a vaccine covered by the Program, administered either in the United States and its territories or in another geographical area but qualifying for a limited … Nargi began later that same month, clearly reflect that the physical testing performed then showed that Ms. Nargi had reduced ROM in her right shoulder.

Neutze v. United States

88 Fed. Cl. 763 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 31, 2009

A plaintiff also must establish a deficiency with “cogent and clearly convincing evidence,” overcoming the strong presumption that the Government discharged its duties “correctly, lawfully, and in good faith.” … Although the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the term “may” in Section 1201 affords a service Secretary absolute discretion to terminate a member’s active duty if the Secretary finds a qualifying

Reeves v. United States

54 Fed. Cl. 652 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 11, 2002

Plaintiffs do not argue that their mining claims qualify under one of the enumerated exceptions, so their claims must be treated like any other claims located on a WSA. … The IMP in particular clearly states in several sections that the nonimpairment standard applies until Congress has acted. IMP at 1, 4, 8 (1995).